Newsgroups: perl.perl6.internals
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.perl.org
Return-Path: <l...@toetsch.at>
Mailing-List: contact perl6-internals-h...@perl.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list perl6-intern...@perl.org
Received: (qmail 81338 invoked by uid 76); 21 Apr 2004 11:07:50 -0000
Received: from x1.develooper.com (HELO x1.develooper.com) (63.251.223.170)
  by onion.perl.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with SMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:07:50 -0700
Received: (qmail 4043 invoked by uid 225); 21 Apr 2004 11:07:46 -0000
Delivered-To: perl6-intern...@perl.org
Received: (qmail 4030 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2004 11:07:46 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=7.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: la.mx.develooper.com
Received: from mail.nextra.at (HELO mail.nextra.at) (195.170.70.48)
  by la.mx.develooper.com (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:07:45 -0700
Received: from lux.leo.home (at24a01-dial-138.nextranet.at [195.170.73.138])
	by mail.nextra.at (20030919/20030919/nextra) with ESMTP id i3LB7d91028294;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:07:39 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from thu8.leo.home (thu8.leo.home [192.168.1.5])
	by lux.leo.home (Postfix on linux 2.0.36 (i386)) with ESMTP
	id 38CCF118024; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:05:42 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from lt@localhost)
	by thu8.leo.home (8.10.2/8.10.2/SuSE Linux 8.10.0-0.3) id i3LB5X010309;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:05:33 +0200
Message-ID: <200404211105.i3LB5X010309@thu8.leo.home>
To: jcli...@mac.com (Jeff Clites)
Subject: Re: Constant strings - again
In-Reply-To: <A088C20E-92EB-11D8-ACDD-000393A6B9DA@mac.com>
References: <407FB1AF.2060003@toetsch.at> <200404181506.i3IF6oo30330@thu8.leo.home> <A14A6816-91DA-11D8-8CC6-000393A6B9DA@mac.com> <200404190925.i3J9PIA24677@thu8.leo.home> <A088C20E-92EB-11D8-ACDD-000393A6B9DA@mac.com>
Reply-To: l...@toetsch.at
Cc: perl6-intern...@perl.org
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:05:33 +0200
Approved: n...@nntp.perl.org
From: l...@toetsch.at (Leopold Toetsch)

Jeff Clites <jcli...@mac.com> wrote:

> Here's another tiny patch, to let us fast-fail string_equal if we have
> cached hashval's which don't match.

Tested and applied now. I've also adoped JIT/i386 to use string_equal
for C<eq> and C<ne> string ops. This speeds up these ops considerably
*and* in the case what your test is showing, numbers indicate:

No stored hashval, 1000000 lookups each
same:  0.018617 sec
equal:  0.487958 sec
not equal:  0.517992 sec
With stored hashval, 1000000 lookups each
same:  0.019674 sec
equal:  0.487740 sec
not equal:  0.038465 sec

... a factor ~14 performance increase for the "not equal" case.

> JEff

Thanks,
leo